2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Sign Code Review February 21, 2041 Page 2 Page 24. Subd, S.refers to window signs. This subdivision remains unchan�;ed from the last draf� revision. (I008.09) BurnsviIle's Code and the USSCF also restsicts window signage #0 25%. Refer ta the attached e- mail from ttte Ci of Mounds View Chief of olice re ardin this issue. Chan es 77 Page 25. Subd. 7. Regulaiion of Campaign signs in this regard may violate Minnesota Statutes. Will Check (1008.09) witta Ci Attorne for o inion. Page 27 Subd, 4, regarding azea Ident�cation Signs. In fhe previous revision, Subd. 4b ended with "unless." (I OOS.I O) The followin has been added: unless ".., such si would otherv✓ise be erniitted hereizz," Page 27, Subd. 5 was prohibited signs. Prohibited signs �vas elevated to its own section and replaced with off- (1008.10) site directional signs. Tlte lan a e added is similar to the footnote in Section 1008.08 Subd. 2. Page 27. New section pertaining to prohibited signs. Tn addit�on to flashing signs, roof signs and temp (I 008.11) advertising in right of ways, a new Subd 2 prohibiis signs mimicking or having an appearance of emer enc vehicle it hts and a new Subd. 5 relatin to vehicles used as advertisin . Non-Conformin��ns: Currently, the Sign Code addresses non-conforming signs in a very restrictive fashion. Section 100�.08, Subd.lc states, "No sign erected 6efore ihe effective date herea� shall be rebuilt, altered or removed to a new location without being brought into compliance with the requirements hereof." The intent of this clause is ciear—a non-conforming signs are to be brought znto compliance if they are to be rebuilt, aliered or moved. Most sign codes do aitow for normai rnaintenance, repair and replacement so long as the extent of the non- conformity is not expanded. Disallowing a sign owner the ability to maintain the si�n could be viewed as a"taking" without compensation. Staff wi11 seek an opinion from the City Atiorney if the Planning Commissian would like to retain this restrictive language. Schedule: According to the scheduie above, we are anticipating a review of the final draft on March 7, 2001 with a public hearing seheduled for March 21, 2001, Because stai� {nrze) will be out of town the weelc before our March 21 meeting, I would recommend scheduling the public hearing irnstead for the Planning Commission's April 5, 2001 meeting. ;i Co�nzrzunication & Notification: As indicated at the last meeting, staf� sent out rnore than 125 Ietters to Mounds View businesses alerting them to ihe fact thai the Planning Commission was reviewing the Sign Code and inviting ihem to attend this meeting. The Chamber of Commerce also sent out a brief notification to its members indicating the Commission's review of the Sign Code. B�cause of �hese notices and messages broadcast on the City's Cable channel 16, staff is hopeful that business owners and other interested parties will be in attendance to provide inpui, StaflE'will have on hand e�ra copies of both the existing sign code and the latest revision attached to this report. Last, the City's website has again been updaied to include information reiating io the ' proposed revisions which can be viewed at http://tcfreenet,or�/or�/moundsview/si�ncode.htm,